Your Thread – October 30

Happy Thursday. Anyone have their costumes picked out for tomorrow?

~By posting on this blog you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog and by our Terms of Use. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail to reportabuse@mysuburbanlife.com.

Advertisements

69 thoughts on “Your Thread – October 30

  1. Hey Bucket, good afternoon. BTW, I’ve left a message for you.

    I am wondering (sorry, Wonder) about Michael Robinson’s trial too. We shall see.

  2. Another tearful jerk of a husband made a passionate plea, using the media, to help find his missing wife, a special ed teacher from New York. Said she’d never leave the children she loved so much (not her children, the special needs children that she taught).

    Well, darn, as soon as her body was found, he was arrested. Arrested? What? You mean those tears and pleas were lies? What’ya know. Another murder suspect who’s an actor.

  3. Morning all…
    I read about the poor NY woman/special ed teacher that went “missing”. So sad… it appears that it is open season on women trying to leave their unstable husbands. Noticed where they also arrested and charged the husband in the NC case where she went out jogging and never returned as well. I think she was canadian if I remember correctly.

  4. Yes, too many unstable marriages ending in tragedy. But, it does happen. For our own hometown suspect, it’s about time he drops the he’s the victim baloney and shut up. Most do not believe him either, and most are waiting for the day he is headlining the news with his arrest.

  5. Good Morning. Happy GJ Day. Glad to hear the vigil was peaceful. I wonder….will there be two different search teams now ? I wonder…when is the GJ going to finish ? I wonder…do we have to wait for the hearsay bill to pass for anything to progress in this case ? I wonder….How are my fellow bloggers this morning ?? I have missed being here, and “most” of you LOL , but life sometimes gets in the way of blogging, but I am back now and ready to wonder away.

  6. Just saw this now at the top from Danya:

    Happy Thursday. Anyone have their costumes picked out for tomorrow?

    Note to Danya: you go first!

  7. Hi Wonder. I never gave much thought to how the Hearsay Law would affect Kathleen’s case, other than, of course, her trying to convince LE and telling her family she feared Drew, but I saw something the other day that I never realized before. Her written letters/journals/writings are probably considered hearsay. So, it looks to be that in order to have them considered by the Judge to be introduced at a trial, the Hearsay Law would come into play.

    I’m also wondering how Jennifer, Steve Peterson’s ex-girlfriend, is involved in Kathleen’s new death investigation, since she spent hours in front of the GJ, and had criminal defense Attorney Glasgow (the state’s Attorney) representing her?

  8. Yeah thats a good question, she might be a real problem for the defense. HA ! I wonder…what does she know ? Seems like a long time to testify if you dont know anything…hmmm….I wonder if your on to something.

  9. I left out something in describing the defense attorney hired by Jennifer: Tom Glasglow, the State’s Attorney’s brother, is what I meant.

  10. I could be mistaken but I think that in the case of Kathleen’s murder Stacy’s statements to Pastor Schori (and maybe to otheres) are the hearsay that would be admissable under the act.

    The act allows for the statements of those proven to have been killed in order to silence them and their knowledge of a crime to be admitted.

    So in Kathleen’s case, if the judge could be convinced that Stacy was killed in order to keep her from testifying about Kathleen’s murder, then her statements could be admissable.

    I’m just not sure about the victim’s own statements…where those fall and how they are or aren’t admissable and if the new law would pertain to them.

    Good morning!

  11. Also after catching up reading I noticed you mentioned a few times, ok maybe more than that, lol that you wondered about the investigation into the crappy investigation of the death of KS when it was obviously not an accident. My experience has been when a law enforcement agency messes up a case, usually another law enforcement agency will take over, as to who investigates the original mess up, well
    that remains to be seen in this case, but out here the agency that screwed up gets sued by the “victims” and thats it. The agency that messed up is reprimanded by the city or county officials due to the large payout after being sued, etc. SO then the agency that messed up calls in a consultant and they advise them on making changes, no one gets into trouble. It kind of sucks if you ask me.

  12. The Stephanie Crowe case out here was a prime example of what I am talking about. Not sure if anyone here is familiar with it.

  13. Another interesting GJ witness, I think, is Kris Peterson.

    When he was to testify before the GJ, his father described him as somewhat of a maverick (my word, not his). He said he speaks his mind and would give the GJ a piece of it.

    To me, I took that as meaning that Peterson had no clue what the lad was going to tell the GJ. I would assume that he could only be coached so far, but he’d have to relay details that made sense or matched his initial interviews. I guess I’m trying to say that just because he’s Drew Peterson’s son, doesn’t mean he goes along with all that he’s seen and knows, and wishes to lie and distort the truth.

    George Anthony had to go before the GJ and tell the truth about the day his daughter wouldn’t let him near the trunk of her car. He still supports her 100% and (unbelievable) promotes her lies about Caylee, but he did relay the facts as they unfolded.

    We shall see.

  14. Wonder – IMO, “messing” up the initial investigation is one thing. BUT, was it a “cover-up,” a shoving-under-the-rug kind of investigation, or mere shoddy investigating and/or incompetence?

    The two are quite different, so I hope that it’s publicly forthcoming just what happened and why!

    The initial investigation mistakes, for lack of a better word, are indisputable!

  15. I agree with you 100 percent Rescue, So then who do you notify ? I wonder…have you researched that part ? Just wondering, as usual, because I would really like to know who investigates this misconduct ? 🙂

  16. Yeah, Wonder, I wonder too who investigates the investigators. I’ve never seen anyone here address that issue. There’s never been a statement from the State’s Attorney’s Office as to how or why the initial investigation went on to allow the burial of an “accident” victim that is now classified as a “homicide” victim, or who is going to enlighten the public how it was determined that happened.

    It’s not going away. There’s too many inconsistencies about the initial investigation. Pumpkin heads are for Halloween, not for the public wondering about a death investigation!

  17. Ok, so any suggestions on where to search to find out what agency or entity is responsible for
    taking action ? I want to know and I am even will ing to make phone call, I just need direction, if you have any ??

  18. Write to the (new) Chief at the BBPD and ask him who the governing agency is for investigating a local law enforcement agency, if such an action is required.

  19. I think it’s time to start posting notable flashbacks of statements published in the media, as opposed to the real truth.

    BOLINGBROOK, Ill. (STNG) ― Friends of Drew Peterson say they held on to the ex-cop’s secret folding gun after Illinois State Police missed it during a search of his home three days after his wife vanished.

    Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, has denied there was such a gun.

  20. Aww, this is precious: (from April, 2008, Greta’s Blog Entry)

    On Thursday when the judge reopened the Savio estate, Drew Peterson’s lawyer messaged me and offered to have Drew appear on our show provided I did not ask about the time line in the other investigation — the disappearance of his wife #4 Stacy. I thought about it…and reluctantly agreed…telling myself that the news of the day was Kathleen Savio (wife #3) and not Stacy.

    My desire to get that time line information remains…Peterson claims he did not harm Stacy….that he told the Illinois Police the time line and his lawyer told me that Peterson just does not want to tell me in case there is a reasonable inconsistency of what he tells me compared to what he told the Police….and that, because he is a suspect in her disappearance, no one would think the inconsistency reasonable.****

    ****Yeah, you got that one right, Brodsky!

    Of course Peterson is not obliged to tell me where he was the day his wife disappeared and note also that some little inconsistencies should be expected as memories fade… ..big inconsistencies and lies are different. I would be looking to see if there were little inconsistencies…or big ones…or even lies. He should not fear little inconsistencies.

  21. rescueapet // October 30, 2008 at 10:51 am

    Write to the (new) Chief at the BBPD and ask him who the governing agency is for investigating a local law enforcement agency, if such an action is required.

    Ok, thanks

  22. Hearsay evidence?

    (Nancy Grace, 2/22/08)

    JON LEIBERMAN, CORRESPONDENT, AMERICA`S MOST WANTED: Well, absolutely. Yes. I mean Kathleen Savio in 2002 filed an order of protection saying, quote, “She feared Peterson would kill her.” She told her family over and over again that if anything happened to her, he would make it look like an accident.

    And Nancy, I have to throw in something about the kids because kids do not lie. And the Savio family shared with us a Christmas card, a note to Santa Claus that one of their kids wrote. It said, quote, “All I want for Christmas is for daddy to stop hurting mommy and for daddy to give mommy a divorce.”

    GRACE: OK. Joel Brodsky is with us, Drew Peterson`s attorney. Any response to the letter to Santa?

    JOEL BRODSKY, ATTORNEY FOR DREW PETERSON: Well, that was during the divorce when they had a very contentious divorce early on, when it was going on. And that sounds to me that Kathy was putting the children in the middle of the divorce case which is unfortunate.”

    GRACE: Yes, it`s all her fault.

  23. GRACE: Let`s go to the source. With us is Drew Peterson`s defense attorney, Joel Brodsky there in the Chicago area. Mr. Brodsky, did he take a lie-detector test in the first — well, not necessarily the first. I would say the third wife`s untimely death?

    BRODSKY: No. In fact, he was never requested to and…

    GRACE: Oh, really? Is he open to that?

    BRODSKY: No, he`s not. I`ve been very clear on this all along, that in this type of context, outside of a, you know, full and complete interrogation, which he`s not going to subject himself to. A lie-detector test really isn`t statistically accurate, so there is no reason for him to submit himself to that.

    GRACE: So when you say nobody asked him to, the reality is, is that he wouldn`t take it, even if asked.

    BRODSKY: Yes, at this point, no, he wouldn`t take it, even if asked. Absolutely.

  24. Grand Jury Witness, Anthony “Bindy” Rock. Believe Peterson’s explanation??????

    MARY FRANCES BRAGIEL, WBBM NEWSRADIO 780: Well, basically, we`re trying to get more information on this Anthony Rock. I`ve talked to a few of my sources who know nothing about this guy. Even a spokesperson for the Chicago Crime Commission that deals with organized crime knows nothing about this guy. Now, Drew Peterson tells me that he dealt with him more than 25 years ago. He sold drugs to Drew Peterson during an undercover narcotics operation, and he was able to — as part of that, Drew was able to get him arrested and charged and convicted. Drew believes that he`s got a book deal going, which is why the grand jury has subpoenaed him. It`s a book deal about Drew Peterson.

  25. Brodsky on Larry King Live, 04/2008

    KING: We have an e-mail question, Drew, from Steven in Darien, Illinois: “Are you willing to take a polygraph test concerning Stacy’s disappearance? And if why, why not?”

    PETERSON: Well, that would pretty much be up to my attorney. If he tells me to take one, I’ll take one.

    BRODSKY: No, polygraphs in this type of circumstance are really — the data is that they’re 50-50. It’s as good as flipping a coin. And there’s really no validity to whether or not — it’s not going to tell you anything. It’s random chance. And so we don’t believe — that’s why they’re barred from courtrooms. That’s why they’re — they don’t use them for evidence, because they’re inaccurate.

    KING: But the public has kind of a belief in them, don’t they?

    BRODSKY: Well, they do, but it is a mistaken belief. When you really look at the statistics, they’re really no more accurate than the flip of a coin. So it’s — they’re really worthless.
    *******
    By Danya Hooker, dhooker@mysuburbanlife.com
    GateHouse News Service
    Tue Sep 30, 2008, 12:41 PM CDT

    “I don’t find (polygraphs) to be reliable,” Brodsky said, adding that they are not admissible as evidence in court. “But if you like polygraphs, the one thing the polygraphs confirm is that Drew had nothing to do with either Kathleen’s death or did no harm to Stacy.”

    Funny, funny Joel Brodsky.

  26. Book infatuation, you say:

    Brodsky accused the Savio family of having an ulterior motive in filing the suit since they can’t benefit financially. Any money gained would go directly to Savio’s sons. Brodsky speculated the family may be trying to gain media attention to make a book deal more profitable.

  27. Sat Nov 1st Search

    Meeting location
    Shell Gas Station
    1285 Lakeview Dr, Romeoville, IL
    This is the intersection of I-55 and Weber rd

    Please be there by 9am.

    Thanks again !!!!

  28. Liar, liar, pants on fire: (Nancy Grace, 3/20/2008)

    Joel, is it true that your client withheld a gun from police knowing that they were seizing his guns?

    BRODSKY: It`s simply another fabrication of slick Rick Mims. He`s trying to sell another story to the “National Enquirer” now that he`s running out of money.

    GRACE: Well, isn`t your client trying to sell a story, too?

    BRODSKY: Not to “National Enquirer,” that`s for sure.

    GRACE: But to who?

    BRODSKY: Nobody right now. I mean.

    GRACE: He wasn`t shopping a book about his experience as a cop before he got thrown off police force?

    BRODSKY: No, not at all.

    GRACE: Nothing?

    BRODSKY: Nope. Nothing.

    GRACE: Well, our sources say something very, very different. That he wanted to shop his experiences as a cop as a movie and a book.

    BRODSKY: No. He hasn`t signed any book deals. He hasn`t signed the agency.

    GRACE: But did he shop it? Did he entertain it? Did he discuss it? Did he pitch it to anyone?

    BRODSKY: No, not at all. The only agent we`ve hired is the consultant Glen Selig(ph) out of Florida who is just a consultant. We discuss with him in dealings with the media. There is nothing — Drew is not writing a book nor is one being written for him.

  29. Liar, liar, pants on fire: (Nancy Grace, 3/20/2008)

    Joel, is it true that your client withheld a gun from police knowing that they were seizing his guns?

    BRODSKY: It`s simply another fabrication of slick Rick Mims. He`s trying to sell another story to the “National Enquirer” now that he`s running out of money.

    GRACE: Well, isn`t your client trying to sell a story, too?

    BRODSKY: Not to “National Enquirer,” that`s for sure.

    GRACE: But to who?

    BRODSKY: Nobody right now. I mean.

    GRACE: He wasn`t shopping a book about his experience as a cop before he got thrown off police force?

    BRODSKY: No, not at all.

    GRACE: Nothing?

    BRODSKY: Nope. Nothing.

    GRACE: Well, our sources say something very, very different. That he wanted to shop his experiences as a cop as a movie and a book.

    BRODSKY: No. He hasn`t signed any book deals. He hasn`t signed the agency.

    GRACE: But did he shop it? Did he entertain it? Did he discuss it? Did he pitch it to anyone?

    BRODSKY: No, not at all. The only agent we`ve hired is the consultant Glen Selig(ph) out of Florida who is just a consultant. We discuss with him in dealings with the media. There is nothing — Drew is not writing a book nor is one being written for him.

  30. This looks like fun. Can I play?
    ***************************

    Joel Brodsky: “I received an private message about my Mim’s comment. I must admit that I have a particular dislike of Mr. Mims. In my business I have both innocent and guilty clients, and I try not to judge people, but I really don’t like con-men. I can have some “respect” (if that is the right word) for someone who just takes your property without pretence, but a con-man pretends to be your friend, gains your trust, and then steals from behind your back. There is no particular rational reason for my dislke of con-men, but I think the betrayal of trust is what I dislke the most…

    Drew Peterson: “I spent my days working cons on people.”

    Derek Armstrong: “I think it’s pretty important that he admits he can ‘work cons’ under pressure when you strap the man on to a polygraph machine.”

  31. This is taken from Peterson/Brodsky’s 11/2007 interview with Matt Lauer:

    Attorneys, as a rule, do not like targets of criminal investigations to give interviews at all. Peterson, however, has said that he has been speaking to NBC News, in part, to get the media to stop camping outside of his home. But he does so at his own peril.

    If he is charged, his public statements about the disappearance of Stacy Peterson, Savio’s death and his rocky relationship with both women could be used to impeach his credibility if he were to testify differently at a trial.

  32. Is this right, Joel??????

    Friends of Drew Peterson, whose third wife was murdered and fourth wife is missing, cooperated with Illinois State Police and wore a wire during conversations with the man – Peterson said today he isn’t worried.

    Joel Brodsky, Peterson’s attorney, said Stark and Wawczak concocted their story for financial gain. He said they have fallen on hard times economically and claimed they were at risk of losing their home.

    “They made this sensational story in order to try to profit from it like other people have profited from selling their stories regarding Drew,” Brodsky said, “and being that they’re in this situation that’s probably their motivation for making this sensational story up.”

    Or, is this right, Joel??????
    Oh, I’m so confused.

    Here is absolute proof that Len Wawczak and Paula Stark are two of the dumbest people on the planet. Wawczak and Stark said that they had Illinois State Police approval to go public with their undercover informant status. So what do they do? They come out through Joe Hosey and the Sun Times for free. My media guru told me that if they had gone to either the National Enquirer or TMZ, and agreed to come out exclusively through one of those outlets, they would have been paid at least $1,000,000.00, (thats one million dollars!!!!) for the exclusive rights to come out with that story! Thats right, Len and Paula just blew a million dollars. But hey, its not about the money right? They got to be friends with Joe Hosey, and that’s worth more than a ton of gold.

    « Last Edit: Today at 11:50am by joelbrodsky »

  33. QUESTION: “Where was Mr. Peterson for those 3 days (beginning November 2, 2007) he took off to clear his head?”

    Joel Brodsky: “An old friends house near Madison Wisconsin.”

    but then…

    Joel Brodsky: Drew didn’t re-connect with the friend who lives near Madison Wisc., until about a month after Stacy ran off. They had lost contact, and not talked or seen each other for more than 10 years.

  34. Schori said Stacy Peterson gave him details about Savio’s death that convinced him she was not speculating about her husband’s involvement. Asked why she stayed with Peterson, Schori said probably out of fear.

    Joel Brodsky, Peterson’s attorney, said on the show, “I’d love to get to cross-examine this guy because there are a lot of problems with his story.”

    You know what, Joel, I’d love for you to get the chance too. Because, Pastor Schori has way more common sense than you do, and a heck of a lot more credibility. Gottcha.

  35. Regarding Kathleen Savio’s boyfriend, speaking after he appeared before the GJ:

    Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, claims Maniaci and Savio broke off their relationship the weekend before she was found dead.

    “Sue Doman, the sister of dead third wife Kathleen Savio, said Savio’s former boyfriend, Steve Maniaci, testified before her Thursday. Maniaci spoke to Savio on the phone two nights before she was found drowned in her dry bathtub in March 2004.”

  36. Eric Zorn – 11/20/2007
    ….when the Illinois State Police took the highly unusual step of naming Sgt. Peterson a suspect in his wife’s disappearance, we learned from Will County prosecutors that, gee, in retrospect, Savio’s death three years ago had “signs indicating it was a homicide.”

    Savio’s wounds and the blood evidence were inconsistent with the ruling made at the time that she’d accidentally drowned in the tub, prosecutors said.

    In their petition, prosecutors wrote that the head wound “did not render her unconscious” and that “evidence is consistent with the ‘staging’ of an accident to conceal a homicide.”

    “The abrasions that were seen on her left buttock and her elbow are not the type of injuries that would occur on a smooth surface as those in the tub area,” Will County State’s Atty. James Glasgow said….

    “No one drowns in a bathtub without being unconscious,” Glasgow said, adding the (independent medical) examiner will look for “fractures of bones [and] subcutaneous bruises that could indicate choking or other injuries” (in a new autopsy)…

    Glasgow appeared to back up members of Savio’s family who have said Peterson threatened to kill her and abused her physically, but that police and prosecutors never charged him.

    Was the earlier ruling an oversight? An error made in haste? Or did Sgt. Peterson get the benefit of doubt in the murder investigation and in the domestic abuses cases because of his status as a police officer? And who is ultimately accountable for these decisions?

    Such questions demands furious scrutiny: If the suspicions of the Illinois State Police prove true, Stacy Peterson may have paid for that ruling with her life.

    ************
    The following is from CBS 2 regarding the transcript of Ms. Savio’s inquest…..

    CBS 2 West Suburban Bureau Chief Mike Puccinelli contributed to this report.

    ‘The only police officer called to testify never was at the death scene, and didn’t attend the autopsy, where eight separate injuries were noted on Savio’s body.

    The coroner asked him if there was “any signs of a struggle noted at the scene?”

    The officer answered: “no there was not.”

    “Any signs of a struggle or defense wounds?” the coroner asked.

    “No, there was not,” the officer answered.

    “And there was a little bit of blood in the tub?” the coroner asked.

    The officer said, “That’s right.”‘

  37. I sure hope that someone is held accountable for the cover-up with KS. How in the world does an officer get sent to testify on a case that he is not even privy to? It looks like one hand washing to other so to speak. I am so not for Drew, but I was wondering if this thought has crossed anyone else’s mind – I realize that he is a snake and ran cons on other people, but he had to learn it somewhere or see that it was allowed somewhere. Where or from whom do you suppose he learned these tricks of the trade?

  38. mom2babies – there’s so much out there, it would make your head spin. Take, for example, Officer Hardy saying at Kathleen’s inquest that they were waiting for phone records, to verify who Peterson called or didn’t call, along with Stacy’s and his son’s, Steve.

    Not only is this not true, but those phone records were NEVER subpoenaed. So, they were hardly waiting for something that was not requested in the first place. They concluded the death investigation and allowed her to remain buried as an accident victim, without even having all of their investigative evidence.

    Was this an oversight, a cover-up, or incompetency? Professional courtesy? In order to finally charge Peterson for the homicide of Kathleen Savio, I can’t see any other way to get around exposing the details of the first death investigation.

  39. Hi guys. Just wanted to throw this stuff about hearsay; sorry if it’s long.

    I think maybe what Pastor Schori and Stacy/Kathleen’s attorney Smith know is not considered hearsay, but “privileged information” between them and their client. From what I could gather, in IL privilege can be waived after death if in the best interest of their client. Unlike hearsay it is very credible given their position and stature.

    They would both have to keep confidentiality while she was alive.

    Smith was aware of all the “anger and strife” going on with the trio and Kathleen would’ve had a lot to say to her divorce/settlement lawyer about DP (abuse, affairs, financials, tax tricks). Then Stacy spoke with Smith twice in 4 days before 10-28, likely giving more than a few reasons for the divorce. He’d be inclined to do right by them, I mean, they both died while he was advising them.

    Stacy was not stupid and would know Smith had all the KS history…. and maybe she even wanted to psyche Dp out by hiring him; a little insurance too late.

    To the media both men “could not elaborate” on what they told police, so it’s only common sense that they had something substantial to elaborate on.

    Then could one or both of these guys testify at a hearsay hearing that Stacy was purportedly a “witness to a felony,” and that there could be good reason for someone to kill her to prevent her testimony?

    Smith was also behind Kathleen when she pulled the order of protection off Dp so he wouldn’t lose his job. But an order has to be drawn on specific documented threat(s), and that would not be hearsay.

    Without finding Stacy they need everything they can amass. And they must have amassed a lot by now. There’s only one shot, so why rush and take a bigger chance? The ISP & the GJ seem to be quite methodical in their investigations, still going; and then the SA has yet to prepare.

    I think the hearsay- all those things you guys mentioned; letters, pleas, journals, will just be the icing. Like a thousand dominos ready to topple.

  40. Wishful I know but I do have faith that there will be something after November. But if they have to wait longer for justice I’m sure the family would rather wait than have impatience screw it up.

    I wonder too what the cause was of not running those cell records of the night KS died. Do all investigations get done that way or just when they involve a cop? Hopefully they were still available last November.

    Maybe someone can confirm the privilege thing. Does Joel come here?

  41. What I’m finding regarding Kathleen’s death, is that there is a wealth of information online.

    By Don Grigas, dgrigas@mysuburbanlife.com
    GateHouse News Service
    Tue Nov 13, 2007, 05:37 PM CST

    William Walsh, internationally renowned researcher in the area of biochemistry and medical research, said Savio’s remains “could prove useful, or it could be a frustrating fishing expedition searching for new clues, depending on the condition of her body.”

    ………After being read the contents of the initial Will County Coroner’s autopsy report dated March 20, 2004 — the autopsy was actually performed at 2:20 p.m. March 2, about 15 hours after Savio’s reported time of death — Walsh said two items appeared “to be a bit suspicious.”

    In the initial autopsy performed by Bryan Mitchell, the doctor noted Savio’s tongue was “partially clenched between the teeth.”

    “You need to be unconscious when you drown, and upon death the muscles in the face relax and the jaw relaxes. Typically you don’t die with your tongue clenched between your teeth. That might indicate there was a struggle at the end,” Walsh said.

    Walsh also said the fact the doctor made no note about the presence of water in the lungs was conspicuous.

    In the initial report Mitchell noted water was found in the Ethmoid sinuses but did not note whether water was present in the lungs.

    “That (water in the lungs) is something you would typically indicate in the case of a drowning victim,” Walsh said

  42. Reply: rescueapet 10/30 9:56am Re: Jennifer,
    Steve Peterson’s ex-girlfriend and GJ:
    As I understand it, both she and Steve lived in the
    lower area of the home while Drew and Stacy were
    married. This is just a guess. It could very well be, Steve may have openly discussed his Father’s disdain for Kathleen, and how he wished she was dead. Perhaps there was conversation that she listened to or knew about, that made her privy to a possible murder. I can see where she might need a defense lawyer if that were the case. She could have been scared to death to come forward with
    information of that nature. Plus she and Steve had broken up, as he cheated on her. She quite obviously knew about the type of man Steve’s father was..and was afraid for her own life. jmo

    jp

  43. Rescue- I thought there was a cop on the coroners jury that was from Joliet who told the other jurors that he knew DP and could vouch that he was a good guy. .

    I thought Hardy was the so called investigator that testified as to the crime scene? It’s getting harder to remember as the time passes, but I’ll check. I think it was an interview with a juror after the exhumation or new autopsy results.

  44. Lizanne – as I understand it, Hardy is the one that vouched for Peterson, and all the other baloney that went along with it. He was the only officer at the inquest. There’s a very lengthy article about the day Kathleen was found, and I’ll go back and check that to see if there’s something about someone vouching for him at that time.

  45. Here’s what I found regarding the night Kathleen was found:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-savio_18aug18,0,7919543.story

    Questions abound over initial probe of Kathleen Savio’s death
    Family members wonder why investigators quickly thought foul play didn’t kill 3rd wife of Drew Peterson

    By Erika Slife and Matthew Walberg | Chicago Tribune reporters
    August 18, 2008

    When Kathleen Savio’s lifeless body was discovered in the empty bathtub of her Bolingbrook home in 2004, state police immediately decided her death was not suspicious, a Will County deputy coroner’s report obtained by the Tribune shows.

    ……..According to a report from that night, Deputy Coroner Mike VanOver asked Robert Deel, a crime scene technician for the state police, and “detectives if there was any reason to believe that this was a traumatic death and they stated NO, therefore the homicide/suspicious death protocol was not followed.”

    VanOver wrote in his report that he had notified his superiors that “the protocol was not being followed . . . because it was felt at that time by all parties that there were not signs of foul play or trauma for this death investigation.”

  46. But I found this-

    “We have no control over who the law enforcement agency is going to send to testify at a coroner’s inquest nor do we know what their role or qualifications are when they’re sent here prior to the inquest,” O’Neil said.

    O’Neil wasn’t the only player in the Savio case breaking his silence Thursday. Wheaton divorce lawyer Harry Smith also spoke out for the first time about representing Savio.

    “Kathy Peterson Savio thought that Drew was going to kill her,” Smith said.

    And Smith says, more than three years later, Stacy Peterson contacted him for the last time just two days before she disappeared.

    “She did contact me for information regarding a dissolution of marriage,” he said.

    The 23-year-old called him twice in the final days before she disappeared. Smith wouldn’t talk about what was said other than to say she wanted to talk about ending her marriage.

  47. Found something interesting:

    “It looked like somebody had cut her nails. She always let her nails grow; she was into that natural, long nail,” Doman said.

    Dr. Baden’s findings from autopsy:

    VAN SUSTEREN: But can you get — I guess it’s — like, suppose someone scratched somebody. Would you — is it too late to look for DNA under fingernails?

    BADEN: Yes.

    VAN SUSTEREN: Too late for that?

    BADEN: Too late for that. And also, she had very short fingernails, even back in 2004. So that wasn’t looked for, but it reads as if it would not have been very helpful.

  48. The police reports confirm speculation that Stacy Peterson gave him his principal alibi for his whereabouts in the days before Savio was discovered. The reports also show he was walking around the scene before state police arrived. At one point, he was alone in the bathroom with Savio’s body and told emergency responders, “This is my ex-wife. Treat the scene with respect.”

  49. So now–he has no alibi and he was knowingly disturbing the scene just by being there, as if he didn’t know. So upset he wasn’t thinking I guess.
    He just wanted to be sure his fingerprints had a reason to be there IMO and that things all went as planned.

  50. “It looked like somebody had cut her nails. She always let her nails grow; she was into that natural, long nail,” Doman said.
    ==========
    Maybe that’s a reason to take the tub out and check the trap, if there is one.

  51. Lizanne – DNA, hair. He took care of all that by messing up the “crime scene.” He knew what he was doing. Then, he got the whole crew believing it was nothing more than an accident. Argh!!!!

  52. So, now that there’s all of this information about how awful the crime scene was processed, how Peterson’s alibi is no longer alive, how his phone records can now be verified, what else is there that can tie him to Kathleen’s murder?

    Stacy talked to Pastor Schori and gave him details that led him to believe she was knowledgeable about the circumstances surrounding Kathleen’s death, so that would be the Hearsay part of it.

    Jennifer, Steve’s gf, looks to be a possible witness with information regarding that night/early morning Peterson returned to the house.

    She had bruises on her ankles, I believe (Bash had a lot of information about this) that may have been caused by being hit with, possibly, a night stick, which is something that certainly can be associated with DP.

    The clothes she was wearing before she was discovered in the tub were not found in her bathroom or her bedroom, so the killer took them with him. Stacy told Pastor Schori that she found DPeterson throwing women’s clothing in the washing machine.

    Stacy said she called Peterson repeatedly that night because he wasn’t home where he was supposed to be. That was in 2004. I wonder if the cell phone pings could still be determined by his records three years later?

  53. In regards to Kathleen Savios fingernails and wearing them long and natural.

    I saw a picture of her with Thomas and Kris wearing a graduation cap. In this picture her nails are not long.

    I will have to find and look at other pictures of her to see how her nails appear.

  54. I found 2 other pictures that offered a view of Kathleen Savios fingernails.

    One picture I believe is her wedding day with her arm on the arm of a man I believe to be Drew Peterson. Her nails are short.

    The other picture is of her, Thomas and Kris fishing and although not the greatest picture, I believe her nails to not be long.

    Wasn’t she an RN? Wouldn’t a nurse or other medical professional have quite a difficult time with long nails and latex gloves.

  55. Found a post of mine from months ago:

    WALTER LEE JAMES, JUROR AT SAVIO CORONER’S INQUEST: “at the time, we were given three options to either come to a decision as to whether it was natural, homicide or accidental. We did not have at the time the option of determining “undetermined” status.” – “there was a police officer on the panel, and he indicated at the time he knew or knew of Peterson. And he indicated to the panel that he thought that Peterson was a good policeman. He was charitable and helped his neighbors, and so on and so forth. So I think that — I think that might have influenced some of the panel members, but I don’t know that for sure.” – “I was kind of apprehensive with one photograph showing her face down in an empty tub. And there was a lot of blood remaining in the tub, and I just — I didn’t — myself did not consider — it was inconsistent with drowning. I feel that the blood that was in the tub should have probably dissipated into the water and drained out with the water. But like I said, I’m not an expert forensic person, so as a layperson, that’s just how I felt.”

  56. whatsinthemirror – can’t answer about the nails. The only reference I know of to her nails came from the post upscreen I found attributed to her sister, and then Baden referring to her nails being very short. Since they’re contradictory, maybe it is possible they were short, yet still long enough to have gotten skin under them if she fought off an attacker. Baden said they were very short, so it does seem feasible that they may have been cut down even more.

  57. “there was a police officer on the panel, and he indicated at the time he knew or knew of Peterson. And he indicated to the panel that he thought that Peterson was a good policeman. He was charitable and helped his neighbors, and so on and so forth. So I think that — I think that might have influenced some of the panel members, but I don’t know that for sure.”
    ———–
    Thanks Rescue, I knew I heard that before. So there was a cop on the panel after all. Plus the ill state cop doing his ‘duty’ to serve and protect (his fellow officer).

Comments are closed.